Craig Lamson

Wrong agaig Duane. Nothing wrong with twisting my body, given the lens, and sun angle. Jack said something could not happen. Emperical evidence shows that it can. End of story and the end of Jack's red herring. If you can't understand how light and shadow work, and how framing a camera works you have no business telling anyone anything photographic. Nor does Jack White. He has been shown time and time again that his "studies" violate the basics of photography. That he pretends he is still correct speak volumes. The funny thing is that Jack proves himself wrong most of the time. Not much effort required. Nothing wrong with the word ignorant, a perfect word to describe the photographic knowlege base of a few forum members.

Do you know what was happening just before this photo was taken? Does the patched fender ring any bells? DO you wonder if the repair process just might have jarred the wheel enough to dislodge the material? That working all around the wheel just might have moved enough soil to obscure all the tracks? Context Duane...context.

Why yes I did hit the wrong button but the mistake is fixed. Now how about you actually answer ind etail the many questions you have been asked?

Its very clear you DON"T have any evidence other than your "opinion" which I might add is based on NOTHING...so yes you are simply waving your hand wildly. Lets take ONE SIMPLE part of your argument and see if it holds water, that here was a large spotlight only a few feet above the 'moonset". You state your ignorance of studio lighting and set building...in fact photography in general, yet you claim the uncanny ability to see the Apollo photos are fakes. How can that be? Without the background in these areas, you ARE WAVING YOUR HANDS. But back on topic, Please explain in detail exactly how your "MOONSET" could have been illuminated by a single light only a few feet above the set and yet not show ANY effects from the law of theinverse square? Can you do anything besides parrot your favorite hoaxers? As for the complete debunking of Percy, if you disagree please offer us a detailed rebuttal..instead of waving your hands wildly.

You are correct Duane...we are not discussing DUST, we are discussing lots of tiny little pebbles which would have wedged into the wire mesh as the wheels rolled over them. Lame responses. Jack Actually you WERE talking about dust in your "study". To quote you, : ...no pebbles or DUST caught by the many.... Very lame Jack.

You keep saying things like "They are so obviously moon sets" and yet you have no actual set building nor photography experience to support your claims. In essence you are simply waving your hands. Its no wonder your claims are rightly dismissed as wild speculation.

Well Duane, if YOU are going to make claims about how your "moonsets' mihgt have been lit, you are going to need to understand some of the basis principaals of photographhic lighting. The law of the inverse square is one of the most basic. It plays a VERY important role. If you don't understand it you are lost. Of course there is a cure....you could actually LEARN the law of the inverse square as it apply to light and then apply this new knowlege to the problem at hand. Continuing bluster on your part adds nothing.

Since this seems beyond you let me explain ONCE AGAIN. Jack tried to set up a strawman...he suggested THAT IF THE PHOTOGRAPERS FEET were shown in the images, the shadows must go to the bottom center of the frame. This was deceptive on Jacks part because it has no bearing on the subject at hand...can the shadows in the apollo image really be to the side of the frame. Jack came up with this deceptive little red herring BECAUSE it had been shown emperically that the shadows as shown in the Apollo images were possilbe AND COULD be reproduced by anyone. Jack was in a bind. He had to find SOME WAY to try and save face. So he invented the "to the feet" argument. I'm not sure if JAck knows this argument is false and he is just hoping to fool the ignorant,or if he actually believes it, in which case it would be beyond the pale for someone who claims to be an expert in photography. In any case I simply called Jack's bluff. To show the entire photographers shadow to his feet, I needed two things. A very wide angle lens and the sun high in the sky to shorten the shadow. With both I was able to show that Jacks deceptive attempt to CHANGE THE BASIS of the arguement WAS WRONG! You can have the shadow of the photographer all the way down to his feet in EITHER corner of the frame AND in the middle depending on how you FRAME the image. In short, JACK WHITE was simply wrong once again about how a simple shadow works. AND REMEMBER NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SHADOWS IN THE APOLLO IMAGES! Now on to the second part of my test. Yes you are correct I had to turn my upper body to frame partial shadows in the right and left side of the frames. Ita quite reasonable ONCE YOU UNDERSTAND the fact that I used the sun very high in the sky. Since the shaodow was short I NEEDED to aim the camera down quite a bit and turn my upper body a bit more than the Apollo astronauts to get the picture. However there have been many other emperical examples that look very similar to the Apollo image. In a nutshell, you are simply wrong...again. Please retract your mistaken claim that I was being deceptive.

deleted dupe post

Lamson did not follow instructions. He did not include his FEET in the photos. He cropped the images using only the top portion of the shadow of his body. Drawing a line in the direction of the shadow so it is to one side or the other reveals that all of his photos shows that if the feet were included they would go to the center bottom. All shadows of the photographer necessarily lead to his feet, and cropping tricks to fool the unaware is a foolish trick. CROPPING takes place in the VIEWFINDER as the photographer chooses his subject, and all of Lamson's photos were selectively CROPPED to mislead. If he can repeat his experiment with his feet not cropped out, he can do miracles. Jack Well, I can see his feet in those photos. Why you asked for susch a photo I still don't know, since none of the Apollo photos in your study showed the astronauts feet. However, Craig duly obliged and now you're claiming the feet aren't there? Plenty of evidence has been presented by myself and Craig refuting your assertion re where the shadow of an astronaut should be - how about that retraction you promised? Then we can talk about the other photos with shadows in apparently different directions. It seems Jack does not understand anything about this at all. He posted this upthread. His "understanding" is quite faulty as the emperical photographic evidence has shown. Jack, please correct your statements and remove your claim that I "cropped" the images I posted. "My study refers, of course, to UNCROPPED images. Anyone can CROP an image to place the shadow of the photographer to one side. If the photographer is standing erect and the camera is above his feet, then any photographer's SHADOW, by the LAWS OF PERSPECTIVE, must always POINT TO THE CENTER BOTTOM OF THE UNCROPPED IMAGE, leading directly to his FEET. If not, the image has been cropped from a full image in which the shadow points correctly. It is the direction of the shadow which matters, not the location within the image. A photographer CANNOT STAND BESIDE HIS SHADOW unless the direction of the shadow leads to his feet. His feet cannot be anywhere except the bottom center of the image. A very simple principle to understand. Jack"

Just to correct Duanes nonsense: The Hasselblad V series cameras are still offered by Victor Hasselblad today. They are a marvel of simplicity and engineering. I own three of them. http://www.hasselblad.com/products/v-system.aspx Next the 60mm lens used on the Lunar Hasselblads had an f-stop range of 5.6 to 22, more than enough of an f-stop range. Many current lenses have the exact same range. Finally the Hasselblad cameras are anything but clumsy. They are simple to the extreme. The focus, f-stop and shutter speed are all set by adjusting rings on the lens barrel. The Modified lunar ELM camera advanced the film with a motor, and film magazines could be changed by simply moving a singe realse button, just like today. Also the leses were modified to add easy to grasp levers to the controls. All in all a very easy camera to operate.

Lamson did not follow instructions. He did not include his FEET in the photos. He cropped the images using only the top portion of the shadow of his body. Drawing a line in the direction of the shadow so it is to one side or the other reveals that all of his photos shows that if the feet were included they would go to the center bottom. All shadows of the photographer necessarily lead to his feet, and cropping tricks to fool the unaware is a foolish trick. CROPPING takes place in the VIEWFINDER as the photographer chooses his subject, and all of Lamson's photos were selectively CROPPED to mislead. If he can repeat his experiment with his feet not cropped out, he can do miracles. Jack Wrong again Jack. In the series of images that show my entire shadow, THEY ALSO SHOW MY LOWER LEGS, AND MY FEET. You did a pretty poor job of inspecting the photography. So, I guess I CAN do miracles since my feet ARE included. I've done nothing to mislead anyone. Jack is the person who is failing in his attempt to mislead. I've simply taken pictures that Jack White, self proclaimed photo expert, says are impossible. Anyone can do just as I have. This is called framing the picture. And as such we can see that the Apollo photographs White claims are impossible...are not. They are EASY to recreate and totally possible. The bottom line here is that Jack White does not know what he is talking about and is making false claims that have been proven wrong with emperical evidence. Give it up Jack. How long are you going to try and spin your way out of this mistake. Be a man of honor and admit your mistake. P.S. I've lightened the test image so that you can see my lower legs, in blue jeans and my dark brown loafers on my feet. Please recant your false claim that I cropped out my feet.

And for the third time you offer nothing. You are at a totally loss due to your inability to understand simply photographic lighting and photography. If you beleve that my emperical evidence is in error you are going to have to do better than telling me "obviously you didn't recreate what he described" Your words mean nothing because they are back with notihng. You are going to actually prove your statement with your own emperical evidence...in other words do the test yourself. Then get back to me. Its really quite telling that Jones didn't provide emperical evidence himself, and thats because he would have failed. He was counting on his readers being ignorant of how photographic lighting works. Now wait a second Duane, you have claimed MANY TIMES that fill lights were used, as does White and Percy. So which is it? A single light set or sets with many lights? Can you be consistant? Ah yes, Percy and his HOT SPOTS...which ones would that be Duane? Be exact now so we can do a proper debunking. Irregular shadows? the ones he claim were caused by more than one light on the set (remember YOU just stated it was all done WITH A SINGLE LIGHT!) or by the light being too close? Tell us exactly so we can do a proper debunking. And the large reflection? That one I love. Perhaps you can rebut the science posted by Jay at Apollohoax that shows how devious old Percy was. Seems once again he was banking on his viewers being ignorant about photography. Be sure to check out the nice piece of emperical photograaphic evidence in Jays works that simply blow you right out of the water...and guess what it a simple experiment YOU can do if you think you can prove his wrong. Gosh thats what is so great about emperical evidence...no "belief' required...facts are facts. http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1169203802 Nice try but you have failed again. I look forward to your detailed reply. Wonderful. If it is a big spotlight only a few feet above the "moon set floor" please explain how this light can break the law of the inverse square. A detailed answer, please.

No you have not explained why. Here is where you fail. Jones describes an exact lighting setup and clams this will show NO SHADOWS. I recreated his set EXACTLY and it shows exactly what should be expected.,..THREE SHADOW, NOT NO SHADOW. Now you claim you "BELIEVE" Jones. WHY? Belief has noting to to with this. It has been proven emperically. No "belief" requried. The emperical proof trumps your mistaken belief. And the best part of this is anyone can do this simple test and prove it for themself. You haave sin=mply shown your total lack of knowlege inthe subject at hand, photogaphy. As for your statement that Percy and Whaite have "proven" it was huge arc lights (are you sure of that...light"s" means more than one light and in your last post you claimed it was a single light...consistant you are not) is simply false. They have "proven' nothing of the sort. If you think they have then explain IN DETAIL why thier "evidence" is correct. And finally, exactly what is your experience in creating lighing for a photoset and HOW DOES THE LAW OF THE INVERSE SQUARE apply to studio lighting? Try again, you have failed once more.

Ah you show you can't read ONCE AGAIN. The ratio of my lights IS EXACTLY as Neville spec'ed it in his poorly done article. What he did was show he really has zero understanding of photographic lighting, as you have just shown. How did you fail to notice this simple fact? Now offer some real objections to my work and show us why YOU think it is wrong. You clearly can't do it by cribbing Jones because I duplicated what Jones wrote, and have shown him (and you by extension) to be wrong. Try again. As to your suggestion that a spotlight or arc light be used, do you have any practical experience trying to light a photoset and more importanly do you understand the law of the inverse square and how it applies to lighting? I look forward to your detailed reply.

In Jack White's Aulius study as shown in the first post in this thread he states: No Photographer can stand beside his shadow! The ONLY apollo photo that correctly depicts the shadow (shows a picture with a photographers shadow in the center of the frame) Correct: When light is behind photographer, his shaodw MUST GO to the bottom center where his feet are! IT'S THE LAW! The laws of physics, ananomy, and common sense say that a persons feet are generally under the head;the camera is centered under the head. The camera must be directly above the feet. When the light is behind the photographer, his shadow must go to his feet, not beside him! (Jack then shows a number of Apollo photos which show the shadow of the photographer atr either side of the frame...not in the center, whcih he claims makes these photos faked do to the explaination he gives above) However emperical evidence says otherwise. Jack, it is time to admit "dafeet". Please do the honorable thing and admit you are wrong in this case and remove your flawed study from the Aulis web and replace it with your admission of being wrong. These photos were taken at Noon when the sun was high so that the entire shadow from my feet could be shown. The shadows were placed on the left, center and right by simply aiming the camera in that direction. What this study proves is that the shadow of the photographer CAN go directly to this feet and NOT be positioned in the center of the frame, as Jack White wrongly insists must be the case. Photos were taken with a Canon 5D, full frame 35mm format digital camera with a Sigma 12mm to 24mm zoom lens at 12mm. Camera original RAW format files are available. As always, don't take my word for this, simply do the test yourself.

Since you consider my work "lame" then I'm sure you can offer specfic objections to show exactly were I'm wrong. Why not start with Nevilles failed claims about studio lighting and shadow, and my emperical debunking of his claims. Specfics please,

No Duane, it you who have this all screwed up. The misleading quote you posted and then misread claiming the samples were RECEIVED by the curator at JSC was written by the phantom NATHAN JONES...its from his FAQ. NEVILLE Jones wrote the worthless and totally debunked article you also posted....but in it the only mention he made of Moon Rocks was to say he was not going to talk about them. SO yes, mistakes were made, over and over and over again...BY YOU! SO PLEASE CORRECT YOUR POSTINGS ... AGAIN. You continue to be in error.

Thanks so much for your effort Duane, but you simply failed once again. First lets fix this part. There is NO INDICATION that author of the FAQ you posted was a PhD. In fact we don't have a clue who really wrote the dang thing. Next lets look at the part of the FAQ you just quoted here and see if it says what you say it does, and that is: "It was not Dr. Neville Jones who received the sugar cube size moon rock to study , it was the curator at JSC ... and Dr. Jones discussed this in his Apollo FAQ article" First off the passage you quote says nothing about the curator "receiving" anything. In fact if you check you will find that its the curator that SENDS OUT THE SAMPLES. SO you are wrong again. Next your Mr. Jones mixed in a quote from the link referenced at the top of section 27 to give the apperance that he was doing the testing, or who knows what because his use of this quote in this manner is very misleading. The author of the quote that is used in a very misleading fashion , Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay, believes the samples are genuine! Here is the portion of the article he wrote, that deals with the Lunar samples: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm The Rocks Below is a photo of a terrestrial rock called olivine gabbro. The bland, mostly featureless areas are made mostly of plagioclase feldspar, a calcium-aluminum silicate. The fractured grains that appear to stand out in relief are olivine, a magnesium-iron silicate. The greenish material along the cracks and the brownish material on the edges of the olivine are water-bearing minerals derived from the alteration of the olivine. The feldspar looks slightly dusty, peppered with tiny inclusions, also the result of alteration. Below is a very similar lunar rock - at least that's what NASA claimed it was. I personally took both of these pictures. The clear areas are plagioclase feldspar and the very light yellow areas are olivine. The dark brown material is a titanium silicate mineral called titanite. What leaps out in comparing the two pictures is the complete absence of water-bearing minerals, and the total absence of alteration in the lunar rock. Water is ubiquitous on earth - it's present in magma, rocks deep in the crust are changed by hot fluids, and rocks near the surface are altered by surface water. Olivine in particular is easily altered. In the second picture, the olivine is fractured but the fractures are absolutely clean. You simply do not see unaltered olivine on earth. This could not have been faked. These rocks have grains easily visible to the unaided eye, which means they cooled slowly. To have made these materials synthetically would have required keeping the rocks at 1100 C for years, cooling them slowly at thousands of pounds per square inch pressure. It would have taken years to create the apparatus, years more to get the hang of making the materials, and then years more to create the final result. Starting from Sputnik I in 1957, there would not have been enough time to do it. And, you'd have to synthesize several different types of rock in hundred-pound lots. And, the results would have to be convincing. All I did to get the moon rock specimens (on loan) was write in and sign an agreement to keep the materials secure when not in use. NASA had no control over any non-destructive tests I might do when I had the specimens. I could have, for example, zapped the rock with X-rays to get its chemical composition. So the faked specimens would have to stand up to any kind of scrutiny that researchers might give them. Whoever came up with the faked specimens would have to have devised a story of lunar evolution to fit the samples. The story would have to have checked out in every detail, for example rare-earth element abundances and evidence of meteor impact. Why create absolutely water-free rocks? Nobody was expecting that - it would have been much easier to fake rocks with water in them (for one thing, you could use terrestrial rocks) and nobody would have been suspicious. And you'd have to put in exactly the right amounts of radioactive elements and daughter products to get the rocks to date radiometrically at 4 billion years old - older than any terrestrial rocks. And you'd have to anticipate the development of new dating methods not in use in 1969 and make sure those elements are present in the correct abundance. And it's not like adding carrots to a stew, either. To mimic the results of potassium-argon dating, you'd have to add inert argon gas and trap it just in the potassium-bearing minerals, and in exact proportion to the amount of potassium. Then the story has to stand up to scrutiny for decades, even in the face of new research methods not in existence in 1969. For example, when lunar meteorites are discovered in Antarctica, they have to match the Apollo samples. If you believe NASA has the technical ability to pull all this off, going to the Moon is a piece of cake in comparison. In other words, your vaunted "Dr." Nathan Jones has just taken you for a ride and you are none the wiser. Please correct your postings...once again.

Well Duane YOU posted the FAQ and YOU stated YOU stood by it. How can that be if, as it appears, you have not read it or if you have you did not understand what you read? Why not READ IT AGAIN and YOU correct your posting errors.

When you post things that are incorrect and untrue expect to be called on it. Thats the way debate works. And btw, your ignorance in the subject of photography is self admitted. Why not post a fact that you yourself have stipulated? If you want relevant postings how about you deal with my trashing of Neville Jones photographic knowlege in the threads, Debunking Duane parts one and two. Do you have the knowlege to do so?

Once again a claim made by DUANE DAMAN that is simply untrue. If you actually took the time to READ what NATHAN (whoever that is) Jones wrote you will see he actually recieved NOTHING...not a sugar cube sized moon rock, not a bubble gum sized piece of moon rock...not any moon rock at all. So both your statement above and this one from a post upthread are devoid of truth and fact....your words are simply not trustworthy.

You are wrong again..in the context of the entire article the phrase "appalling" is not even close. Its pretty simple to see you cannot be trusted to paraphrase nor quote with any accuracy.

Again, a mis quote from Duane Daman. The correct words from the article are: "It was quite alarming."

Actually the article you posted here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9167 By Neville Jones says nothing about the lunar rocks other than to say he has nothing to say about them. Now unless you have posted a DIFFERENT article by Neville Jones, (and I am more than happy to be proven wrong) then this is simply another case of Duane Daman mis quoting.